Fear, greed and glory with Lori Garver

In this week’s episode of Space Minds, Lori Garver, former NASA Deputy Administrator sits down with host David Ariosto. Garver describes what drives spaceflight-and what that means for the agency’s shifting priorities.

In this conversation Garver delves into the evolving landscape of U.S. space policy, particularly against the backdrop of political dynamics, commercialization, and shifting priorities within NASA. Garver reflects on the continuity and changes in NASA’s approach, highlighting enduring issues such as the politically driven support for the Space Launch System (SLS) and the broader implications of increased partisanship.

Garver also critiques the sustainability of current lunar missions and expresses concern about potential budget cuts, particularly in space and Earth sciences, as NASA shifts focus toward Mars exploration and commercial low Earth orbit (LEO) initiatives. Garver notes the influence of billionaires on the space economy, which has reshaped priorities and expectations, often at odds with traditional governmental roles.

And to wrap up, Garver emphasized the need for strategic clarity, especially in the context of geopolitical competition with China and uncertainties brought by trade policies and tariffs. Ultimately, she underscores the complexity of aligning national space goals with constrained budgets and commercial interests, warning that without clear direction and support, NASA could face significant challenges in executing its long-term vision.

And don’t miss our co-hosts’ Space Take on important stories.

Show notes and transcript

Time Markers

00:00 – Episode introduction
00:25 – Guest introduction
00:30 – What stands out with you with the new administration?
03:04 – SLS and Jared Isaacman testimony
05:59 – Shifting goals?
10:32 – Is the broader play a national prestige push?
16:04 – Political reality and protectionist policies 
20:04- Space Takes – Space warfighters
28:14 – Space Takes – Jared Isaacman
34:15 – Space Takes – The Pope and space 

Transcript – Lori Garver Conversation

David Ariosto – Lori, it is good to see you again.

Lori Garver – Nice to see you David.

David Ariosto – Yeah, I think this is it’s just, it’s a really good time to talk with you, particularly at this point in time, because, like, you’ve been there, right? You’ve, you’ve led transitions teams at NASA before, you’ve been in sort of these, these budget processes. But when you look at this one, there’s, there’s obviously a lot different here, not only just in terms of the nature of the political process and how sort of the the agency may relate to the broader administration, but like, there are just seemingly a number of other factors here. There’s the the influence of Elon Musk, there’s just this like paradigm shift that we’ve seen just in terms of the overall sense of commercialization, and how that sort of plays into sort of like maybe a cognitive change within the agency itself. But like, I’m curious maybe to start off as a what, what stands out with you?

Lori Garver – Sure, well it is interesting time. There are similarities and there are differences. The things that stand out to me are so I not only compare the transition activities, but the confirmation having been through that as well. And to me, of course, there’s more partisanship, but there is a surprising number of amount of parochialism that remains for much of the second term of President Trump, here you’re getting acquiescence to what he is proposing, and some of those things are very radical. Constitutional crises loom. But on the NASA side, we still seem to be getting the I want my big rocket and those coming from both sides of the aisle, similar to what we got 16 years ago. And of course, sadly, in my view, the rocket we’re still talking about is the one that we were coerced into evolving from old shuttle and constellation parts. So lots stays the same. So in some ways, I empathize, but the reaction, I think, of the administration today is quite different than the what we proposed, and I and I am, of course, concerned about the cuts that loom.

David Ariosto – Yeah, you just sort of laid out a whole, whole range of things I kind of wanted to get into. But since you mentioned SLS as the Space Launch System, this is a sort of an age old rocket, I’ve heard this described as a political rocket in some some corners, because of the influence of its congressional champions, in many ways. But we did have Artemis one. You know, we have Artemis two coming up. Jared isaacman has talked about this, and talked about sort of this potential dual approach with the Moon and Mars, essentially looking at least Artemis two and three in terms of their existing structures. But I’m like, I’m wondering when you saw that, that hearing what stood out at you? Because it struck me that there was, there was the official commentary, and then there was, there was a couple things between the lines there, that if you parse some of those sentences, it sort of opened. Windows in terms of how he was thinking and maybe how the direction within the administration is oriented.

Lori Garver – Yeah, I think we were all sort of trying to read the tea leaves in the hearing. And while I agree that the SLS is a political rocket small p, we do have to, I continue to remind people when it was developed, a lot of that was developed internal to NASA, at the behest of congressional staff and leadership, who didn’t want those jobs from constellation to go away. But it wasn’t something Congress just pressed on an unwilling NASA. You’re seeing this military industrial complex that includes government industry going forward to defend that to this day. So what we saw with the nominee, with Jared isaacman, was, I thought initially, sort of a healthy, let’s focus on the long term. What really matters is what can get done. I think everybody can agree with that, but I felt when pressed, he ultimately did commit to flying those first two missions, or next to Artemis two and three, although maybe with some ways awards of things don’t go well when he if he gets into place, which I think he will, hopefully soon, the question about how long we stay at Moon, I think, is where you are picking up on those…

David Ariosto – That’s, that’s it, that’s, that’s, that’s what I want to, want to chat…

Lori Garver – There’s a signal, sort of, if we see things worthwhile there to do, because he’s got to focus on Mars that is directed by the leadership of the country, the elected leadership of the nation. So they’re allowed, he’s allowed, and Congress, of course, is allowed, to push back fascinating that they aren’t pushing back on much else these days.

David Ariosto – Right, right? And let’s, let’s, let’s, like, provide some context in terms of that. Because he said, you know, absolutely wants to see us. He says the quote, see us return to the moon. But then it’s sort of in almost the same breath, he said, but NASA has to identify the scientific, economic and national security value to being there. And, you know, he only a couple minutes later, during that same testimony, said, I am very hopeful that we’re going to find, essentially find value on the moon in order to support the ongoing lunar presence. And then, oh yeah, by the way, he also sort of questioned why it has taken so long at such great expense in terms of the the initial structures. So, you know, all of this strikes me as as at very least question marks in terms of the nature of the trajectory. He did start off with saying that, I don’t think we need to make any tough trades, but if that’s the path, then there’s not, and you mentioned this a little bit in the beginning, there’s naturally going to be some pretty significant cuts to make that happen one would expect, and we’ve already sort of seen proposed cuts. And I’m wondering, like, not necessarily, to go line item here, but the general shape of the organization is this. There’s an emphasis now on exploration, human space flight, obviously, commercial space stations that are coming online the next five years. That seems to be a pretty market departure in what we’ve seen, at least in terms of where the science budgets have been, and maybe sort of a re-shifting of both budgetary priorities and sort of long term goals.

Lori Garver – Yeah, first addressing the part of the testimony, thoughtful hedging, perhaps, I think that’s the right frame to put our lunar ambitions in. He is aligned with those who want to go back to the moon before China gets there for the first time, and he wants to do it in a way that is sustainable. He acknowledged, which I think was just crystal clear. Of course, you got no follow up from the senators on it, that the SLS and Orion are not a sustainable way to go back to the moon. So of course, you’re going to then have to make a decision about how long you’re going to try and press for the moon? Are you going to allow some of these new, reusable systems to go? And that is dependent, of course, on information you get, how fast those vehicles go and whether or not you’re pressing to Mars. Seem to me, it’s real clear we’re pressing to Mars that in the sort of 10 pound bag that we’re trying to put, probably 25 pounds into, at least we know five pounds that are being removed, and that’s space and earth science. It’s not nearly enough to be removed. They’re still going to be overtaxed in. Credibly with the budget. That’s a hard choice, and not one a lot of us would make, because it does seem to be one of those core government roles that isn’t very quickly or thoroughly going to be taken by the private sector. But we’re putting a lot out there to the private sector that I wouldn’t have thought 10 years ago when we did commercial crew and before that, cargo would have been ripe for investment. The billionaires who are investing for personal reasons have really skewed the system. So it’s not clear to me why you wouldn’t have the government focus on those things where you’re not seeing the commercial interest in investing, it’s upside down right now, and a lot remains to be seen, but decisions need to be made years before you actually get the return. And of course, Jared is going to be as he should in a hearing, and by the way, Charlie and I got nothing like the difficult questions that he got, but the decisions will have to be informed. And sure, Jared has done some studying, but at this point, he’s kept outside of certain things. And whenever he gets in there, he’ll dig in, and we may see some tougher choices having to be made.

David Ariosto – You know, I mean, part of, part of the rationale, and part of the part of the, you know, the nature of how to figure these things out was related to economic and strategic value. And that argument’s very clear when you talk about Leo and GEO, right? It becomes a little bit less clear when you talk about the moon, a little bit less clear when you’re talking about Mars. I mean, obviously, you know, there’s a there’s the the impetus of having a geopolitical rival that I think was just kind of coming into its own when you were at NASA, which is sort of, sort of like the inception of the China space program. But now, I mean, with these China missions and the broader blueprint for the solar system in terms of, you know, lunar presence and Mars presence, and you know, some of these other, these other sort of pushes towards asteroids and further out in the solar system, I do kind of wonder is this is the broader play when we talk about strategic value, is this a national prestige push? Are there sort of real, long term considerations? I know we have things like helium three and water ice on the moon. You know, Mars is even more rich in terms of its of its resources, but strategic value and economic supply chain, that those seem so long term in terms of of how they can potentially be viable, that it almost makes one think that this is like a broader, almost philosophical push in terms of what’s, what’s driving the impetus towards this sort of long held debate between the Moon and Mars, and the questions of whether economics and national security play into that, it seemed, I mean, you have to stretch a little bit to kind of get there, at least in the immediate term.

Lori Garver – Yeah, I’ve been in the aerospace field now as a professional for 40 years, and the moon versus Mars, the commercial versus government have evolved over time. Lots of misinformation out there. I thought I was quoting in the book Neil Tyson as the reasons for human space flight are like the great cathedrals and the pyramids. You do them for one of three reasons, fear greed and glory. Neal told me those weren’t the words he used. He told me that before, so I got it correct in the book, but I use them now. Fear greed and glory. So of course, we fear competition. We went to beat the Soviets initially, and so much, especially of this hearing and what Jared says is against the Chinese now, for going back to the moon, greed is commercialism. Are we expanding the economic sphere, and more naturally, that would go to Leo before it goes to these distance places, distant places where the immediate return is is hard to see. That’s where I point to as I had just said, the billionaires are a perturbation in the market. They have opened up now for things like clips, other companies who are leaning in, and if this whole infrastructure on the Moon were developed as planned, they might benefit from that. But I think we’re seeing politically as we’ve been speaking about, the focus turning to Mars. Makes the moon may be less profitable for some of those companies who’ve already invested, and this is the difficulty when you’re counting on the government as your only market. That’s why we focused on Leo and specifically on transportation, because it wasn’t just NASA, it wasn’t just the US government, it wasn’t just government the commercial launch market already existed, so there was a pull. I was presuming, I think NASA had been presuming for a while that commercial Leo, post space station could provide that probably means a lot more money than we’re putting into it so far, and it doesn’t seem like they’ll be wrong to do that, although Jared said wonderful things about the importance of it. If I look geopolitically, it seems like not having anyone in space in low Earth orbit is particularly bad. So it’s bad both for the fear and the greed. Glory is these momentous things. Apollo was nothing if not glorious. Returning to the moon would also be glorious, especially if you’re going away. But where people want to put that today, but it’s been there the whole time we’ve I know former administrators have said we’ve closer than we’ve ever been. And I always say, well, that’s just a matter of time. The I still think humans to Mars is, is pretty far away, and a switch to Mars, I know Jared said we can do both. There’s a lot of skepticism about that.

David Ariosto – I, I would imagine…

Lori Garver – Especially in a shrinking budget with commercial Leo, I’m the biggest champion of doing things differently. I absolutely know that we can do more, but it is a tough as Jared is already seeing if he’s got to fly out SLS and Orion the next to missions that that will be his whole tenure …

David Ariosto – In the context of the political realities that are happening as well, and we haven’t even mentioned this, or the nature of protectionist policies and sort of this burgeoning global trade war. You know, there’s it. I mean, it’s very hard to cover these things in many ways, right? Because there’s some accordion in terms of policies, you know, they have the 90 day pause or, you know, sort of a ratcheting up in some of these tipper tat, sanctions or not, sanctions, with tariffs with regard to China, and how that plays out in terms of all those companies that you just mentioned that get a lot of the raw materials and a lot of their, well, a lot of sort of the the finite sort of processing aspects of what, what’s instrumental in terms of aerospace engineering, in the context of these bigger ambitions, and all this sort of discussion and hype about a growing commercial industry, you got to wonder, what is the sort of knock on effect of of these things to these two things that would seem to be operating separately but very much connected in terms of, you know, the primacy of space that this administration has talked about, but then also the questions that Come in terms of the policies of tariffs and responsiveness from China that may or may not undermine this. So I wonder what the go between is there.

Lori Garver – That’s a really important point. I advise commercial space companies was at a board meeting for one yesterday that we have both European and US presence, and there’s a couple of things happening to be aware of, not not only the exports for raw materials, but for the US government purchasing anything. And beyond NASA in the government, there are all kinds of uncertainties which don’t lend themselves to investment in new areas. People like certainty, even in the VC world. So they’re the ability to predict for some of those companies. Might might cause them to hold up a bit as we reshuffle, I think, in the time, and it was 16 years ago when we put out a budget that was seen as so drastic in its change and embracement, embracing new policies, we were growing the budget, so doing this in a shrinking budget environment will be even harder, and we were just proposing this little commercial crew program that was $500 million and of course, it got cut over and over. So what we’ll see is this budget getting reviewed by Congress. It appears that Congress is going to continue to restrict NASA’s. Independence, as it is not doing for many, if any, other agencies that I’m aware of, maybe Jared can make the case for the budget, and I know that he won’t. Isn’t, I’m sure, happy with the cuts to science, but that’s part of being in an administration, at least my first budget, I really embraced most of it. Of course, I would have loved to see more money, but this is not something that I think Congress is going to receive well, and so that means the blood is in the water and the sharks are circling. So that’s not usually a good sign for NASA, in my view.

David Ariosto – All right, I think that’s a good place to leave it. Lori Garver, you’ve been there, you’ve seen it, you’ve done it, and your insight is, as always, incredibly helpful. Thanks so much for joining us here on Space Minds.

Lori Garver – You’re welcome. Thank you for having me.

About Space Minds

Space Minds is a new audio and video podcast from SpaceNews that focuses on the inspiring leaders, technologies and exciting opportunities in space.

The weekly podcast features compelling interviews with scientists, founders and experts who love to talk about space, covers the news that has enthusiasts daydreaming, and engages with listeners. Join David Ariosto, Mike Gruss and journalists from the SpaceNews team for new episodes every Thursday.

Watch a new episode every Thursday on SpaceNews.com and on the SpaceNews YouTube channel.

Be the first to know when new episodes drop! Enter your email, and we’ll make sure you get exclusive access to each episode as soon as it goes live!

Note: By registering, you consent to receive communications from SpaceNews and our partners.